Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 09:45:14 -0700
From: Marc Salomon <marc@ckm.ucsf.edu>
Message-Id: <199610151645.AA07988@library.ucsf.edu >
To: marc@library.ucsf.edu, pflynn@curia.ucc.ie
Subject: Re: <a footnote="proposal">
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Peter Flynn wrote:
|Nothing wrong with that, if your footnote is instantiated as a separate
|page, but as I understand it, it would be REL=footnote, rather than
|REV. REV=footnote would mean that your document was the footnote to the
|W3C HTML Spec.
I had always thought that the REV relationship means that the anchor head in
which it occurred was asserting how the anchor tail linked to the head.
The REL relationship means that the anchor head was making an assertion on its
link semantics to the anchor tail.
REV, encoded in English, represents the asserting anchor head as the object and
the anchor tail as the subject of the assertion.
<A REV="footnote" HREF="refs/fn.html">This tail is my footnote</A>
subj obj
REL, encoded in English, has the asserting anchor head as the subject and the
anchor tail as the object of the assertion.
<A REL="footnote" HREF="pg.html">I am this tail's footnote.</A>
subj object
REV = An "it is my" statement.
REL = An "I am its" statement.
-marc